i5 2540m vs i7 2630qm - Which for gaming/ Emulation?

Which of these processors would be better overall for gaming and emulation (Specifically the Dolphin Emulator)?

Processor
2nd generation Intel® Core™ i5-2520M processor (3M Cache, 2.5GHz with Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz)

Processor
2nd generation Intel® Core™ i7-2630QM processor (3M Cache, 2.0GHz with Turbo Boost up to 2.9GHz)

 

No doubt the i7 quad you list.

Simply a much more powerful platform to base your gaming and emulation off of.

 

i7 no doubt has more number crunching power but it depends on the premium. If it cost $200 more for the upgrade...I probably wouldn't consider it.

 

Thanks for the update

 

If you have a need, an arbitrary budget limit doesn't make sense.

You either need the performance or you don't; you then choose to spend the money now or later.

But, if you base it on $$$ first, then that doesn't necessarily mean you will get the performance you may rightly 'need'. All it means is that you've put off the 'right' purchase for a while and made that 'right/correct' purchase decision a lot more expensive (because you're buying twice).

 

If the i7 2630qm is much more powerful than the i5 above then why are they available for the same price?

 

If I'm correct, Dolphin only uses 2 or 3 cores, so it could be better to get the i5 for the clock speed boost.

 

Which laptop are you looking at and which upgrades are you already planning on adding?

You'll want to prioritize upgrades such as the 1920x1080 display as more important, because the screen upgrades are more important than the processor upgrades.

 

While I don't do dolphin but pcsx2. Generally go for the higher clock i5. Most emu barely take advantage of 2 cores.

 

i5 its enough , but i7 has advantages in different areas and it is more futureproof .

 

Currently I have the following Alienware.
Please note I've used the Dell Xps 15 before with both screen types and would happily use either or.

Alienware M15X
Intel i7 820QM Quad Core, 4 x 1.73Ghz- turbo 2.93Ghz
500GB (7200RPM)
6Gb RAM 1333MHz DDR3
Intel 5300 Wireless Card
15.6in Wide TrueLife HD+ (1080) WLED
1 GB NVIDIA GeForce GTX260M
Genuine Windows 7 Home Premium (64 BIT)
3 Year Warranty

Possible exchange for :

Dell XPS 15
Intel i5 2540M / i7 2630QM (Same price for either processor.)
500GB (7200RPM)
4Gb RAM 1333MHz DDR3
Intel Wireless-N 6230
15.6 HD WLED TL (1366x768) 720p
1GB NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 525M
Genuine Windows 7 Home Premium (64 BIT)
3 Year Warranty


Would overclocking the GT 525m to a GT 550m make the Dell Xps 15 a suitable contender?

 

Are you sure you are content with the 1366x768 panel on the XPS15? You will start hating a 1366x768 screen if you ever do multi-tasking or want to have some windows side by side on screen, in fact it's horrible for almost everything, even for simple browsing, not to mention 1366x768 panels usually have inferior quality, HORRID contrast and washed up colors compare to the 1080p screens.

The ONLY thing in the XPS that outshines the Alienware is the i7-2630QM, if I were you, the choice is simple, stick with your Alienware, the screen alone justifies the decision. If you want more CPU power for dolphin, sell your 820qm and get yourself a i7-920xm or even better, a i7-940xm, and overclock the heck out of that thing, it should easily beat a i7-2630qm even with some moderate overclocking.

 

I find the 1080p screens highly over-rated or at least for my purposes.
The Xps 15 I'm looking at is £200 cheaper if I were to sell my M15x.
I really don't want to go the bother of interchanging more parts if I'm honest.
I also miss the amazing JBL speaker system on the Xps.

The fact that it can run the Dolphin Emulator better is another bonus however I'm aware that modern day PC games will run smoother on my M15x thanks to the Gt 260m GPU hence why I'm debating it.

The M15x is also considerably heavier than the XPS 15 too....and the battery pales in comparison.

 

The screen still makes more of a difference than any other upgrade because it affects everything you do. If you're willing to spend money on any upgrades above the stock configuration, you should get the 1920x1080 display.

Generally it's a really bad idea to buy the XPS 15 with 1366x768. Just saying. You're wasting your money on the XPS 15 if you get the 1366x768 screen and spend the money on other less-noticeable upgrades.

I too have seen both screen types. The contrast of the 768p screen is horrible. Lighter images might look almost okay, but darker images become completely washed out. In BJ's the other day, I saw the XPS 15's 1366x768 screen side-by-side with other 1366x768 screens, and it appeared Dell had played with the Gamma settings to make "some" images look slightly more saturated, but for most things it looks horrible.

Regarding the resolution difference: If you haven't seen the big resolution difference and multitasking capability difference, it's because you've seen the 1080p screen with 125% DPI. There's still a difference, but it's a bit more noticeable when both run at 100% DPI.

 

I have a 2630qm and I do dolphin emulation and pcsx2 all the time. Zero complaints, handles it like a champ. No problems playing super smash bros brawl in 1080p or rendering KH2 and FFX in 1080p as well.

 

Well, PCSX2 now can make use of 3+ cores so I think get an i7 will give better performance. And I heard that with 2630qm you can still play Dolphin at full speed with adjusted settings.

 

Is it worth the sale for this cheaper system and a saving of around £150 against my current Alienware?
User edit1754 strongly disagrees (Input appreciated)

Intel Core i7-2630QM processor 2.00 GHz with Turbo Boost 2.0 up to 2.90 GHz
Genuine Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit
4096MB 1333MHz Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM [2x2048]
1GB NVIDIA® GeForce GT 525M
15.6 HD WLED TL (1366x768) 720p with 2.0 Mega Pixel Integrated Camera
JBL 2.1 Designed & Certified Speakers + Waves MaxxAudio 3
500 GB SATA HDD 2.5 inch 7200RPM
9-Cell 90WHr Li-Ion Battery
Intel® Centrino® Advanced Wireless-N 6230 (2x2 a/g/n) with Bluetooth
3 Year Warranty

 

I assume your current alienware is Core 2 Based correct? I made the jump from a core 2 quad q9100 overclocked to 3.0ghz to a 2630qm, and I can say, the difference is phenomenal. Go for it!

 

technos, thanks for confirming (again) that a platform jump is indeed 'phenominal'. Even more so when people are considering spending hundreds of dollars for upgrading the cpu when a few hundred more can give them much, much more.

 

The CPU in his Alienware is a i7-820qm, not a a core 2 based quad(scroll up), selling the 820qm and getting a i7-920xm/940xm is still the best option for him, an overclocked i7-920xm/940xm easily crushes a i7-2630qm.

And a gtx260M is a lot stronger than a gt525M as well, by going with the xps you will also lose a lot of GPU power, there are other reasons to keep his alienware, even if you consider both screens equal.

GTX260M vantage GPU score:4315
GT 525M vantage GPU score:2927

Figures come from notebookcheck, not the most reliable source to look for benchmarks, but still 260M is a capable mid to high tier GPU, while 525M is pretty much a low end(47%!! slower).

 

Gaming is 99% GPU dependent. The difference is FPS between the i7 and i5 in modern games is negligible, if not zero. For emulation, I'd suggest getting the i7. Right now, most emulators aren't optimized for quad cores, but I'd think that the functionality for that should come out in the future. Fact is, regardless of i7 or i5, the clocks are good enough to emulate dolphin smoothly. Given that, it wouldn't make sense for one not to get the i7, so you can be more futureproof.

 

I don't know how much you can overclock 2 gen old processors, but I find it hard to believe that they will 'crush' an i7 2630QM.

See:
PassMark - Intel Core i7-2630QM @ 2.00GHz - Price performance comparison


See:
PassMark - Intel Core i7 940XM @ 2.13GHz - Price performance comparison


I'm also not sure if the best option is to 'upgrade' his current cpu for a mere 30% performance increase.

Depends on the cost of course, but for me, if it cost more than $20-$30 for this 'upgrade' I wouldn't be bothered.


See:
PassMark - Intel Core i7 820QM @ 1.73GHz - Price performance comparison


As usual, a platform upgrade (especially when you're jumping 2 gen's or more) is the better upgrade path, imo.

 

Dolphin/PCSX2 doesn`t care about GPU at all. It is all emulated through the CPU. Even a simple IGP is enough.
Gaming, ie PC games however, is all about the GPU.

2630QM vs 940XM at stock speed are close. The Sandy Bridge (2630QM) is a bit faster. However if you are going to overclock the CPU, then the 940XM is probably better for emulating. Emulating is all about frequencies and speed, and you get better results in Dolphin using 940XM OCed. For gaming, ie PC games 2630QM would be the better choice because it use less power and runs cooler and an overclocked 940XM will not give you any more benefits (more frames) in games.

My 10 cents

 

You shouldn't trade-off your screen for a processor though. Regardless of what difference a processor makes, the screen still makes *more* of an overall difference.

 

I would have picked the Alienware. Better GPU, equally good CPU in gaming (except emulator and CPU dependent games) plus it have 1080p which is a huge plus in my book.

Here are proof that a faster CPU (or more cores) does not matter for gaming.

 

Thanks Cloudfire, that's a really useful chart. I bumped into this question myself too, I suppose I will go for dual IB or of possible 35watts quad

 

How is a i7-920xm/940xm 2gen old?? They are the first gen i7 and now we have the second gen. If you have doubts how high can i7-920xm/940xm be overclocked, check out this thread for some results: http://forum.notebookreview.com/ali...alienware-m17x-benchmark-thread-part-4-a.html Just the first page should give you some ideas.

Also keep in mind, dolphin emulation is NOT the only thing he does, he plays PC games as well, and going from 260M to a 525M is HUGE downgrade. As I said, the only thing the XPS has that beats the AW is the 2630qm(can be remedied by selling 820qm and getting 920/940xm), everything else will be a downgrade(GPU, screen), performance wise, at least.

 

Not impressed with benchmark 'scores'.

Do you have any real world (even games...) info how O/C'ing these old cpu's gives real advantages?

I can't even imagine how these have to be cooled. Started reading about using dry ice to cool off the cpu... lol...

Dry ice... not portable enough for me.

 

I have never seen or even heard of any of those AW owners have experimented on dry ice cooling or anything that outlandish, we are talking about notebooks, not desktops, they are all done with default AW cooling system.

So you are doubting overclocking doesn't give real advantages? and only gives "fictional" advantages? You first listed all those passmark scores and now you are downplaying the value of benchmarks??

Of course you won't notice the difference of 2630qm and a 2960xm if you are merely doing some not so cpu-intensive programs, or playing games that are GPU bound(most of the games on the market are), the difference will only be distinguishable when you are encoding video, rendering complex 3D scenes, or playing CPU intensive games like SC2 or running dolphin in OP's case.

As people noted above, the AW has better GPU(much better!), better screen(1080p vs 768p), and only has an inferior CPU, trading a better CPU(can be upgraded!) for worse GPU(can NOT be upgraded!) and worse screen(very hard to replace) simply doesn't make sense.

 

Hmmm...

You're the one that points to that thread and you don't even know what's on it.

The PM scores were merely for reference - if you wanted to compare - where are your PM scores for your O/C'd cpu's?

 

PM is just a CPU benchmark, just like any other CPU benchmark on the page I linked above, superPI, wPrime etc, there are lots of those test results in that thread, there is not a CPU universal and popular like 3dmarkvantage or 3dmark11.

First you said i7-920xm/940xm is 2 gen old, then you are not "impressed" by the benchmarks and came up with those imaginative dry ice cooling ideas of yours, and believe overclock doesn't give performance advantage. Not to mention you are blatantly IGNORING the fact the the HUGE DOWNGRADE by going from 260M to 525M and 1080p screen to a 768 screen as EVERYONE else see.

You want some overclocked 920xm/940xm vs 2630qm? here it is:
SuperPI: 1M
2630qm 13.9 sec -----> Intel Core i7 2630QM Notebook Prozessor - Notebookcheck.com Technik/FAQ

940xm: 10.311 sec --------> http://forum.notebookreview.com/ali...alienware-m17x-benchmark-thread-part-4-a.html

You can say superPI is single threaded and and now we move to multi-threaded wprime:

wprime 32M:

2630qm: 10.3 sec------> Intel Core i7 2630QM Notebook Prozessor - Notebookcheck.com Technik/FAQ

940xm: 6.958 sec-------> http://forum.notebookreview.com/ali...alienware-m17x-benchmark-thread-part-4-a.html

If overclock doesn't provide any performance again, why would people even bother spending a lot more on those XM and K processors and risk stability/more heat to overclock?

I don't think I need to repeat this once again, but still necessary to mention to you, by going with the XPS, he will lose a 1080p screen AND a lot of GPU power as cloudfire and edit also see.

Even if OP decided not to swap his 820qm for a 920xm/940xm, he can still overclock his 820qm, an overclocked 820qm can bring the gap between a 820qm and 2630qm a lot closer, check out the overclock results of 720qm and 820qm in that thread, they are not much behind of a 2630qm. In this case, it still makes sense to go with his AW because practically 2630qm can't be overclocked at all.

 

Thank you all.
It's been interesting to review the different opinions concerning what I should do. I'll note the advantages of each (My opinion) to help review.
These are listed as the machines currently stand and are subject to change.

Alienware M15x
Stronger GPU (By far)
Upgradable/ Overclockable CPU (I'm wary of doing due to the limited cooling or the expense of installing a new CPU)
3 Year Warranty

Dell Xps 15
Stronger CPU
Lighter weight
Superior Sound System
3 Year Warranty

I really don't consider the screen in this case an advantage as stated before I've used the 720p version on the XPS and thought it suitable.
If I'm honest I think for screens it's more a personal preference - I recently used the IPAD 2 with it's "amazing" screen but wasn't that impressed.
It was sharp, but nothing that captivated me...

It is correct that I will be and indeed are using my laptop for PC games on a casual basis as well and are delighted with the performance.
However the Dolphin is used heavily with my friends for it's capabilities and modding opportunities.
My other concern is portability for the future (Uni, etc) - Now I'm physically strong (Weight lifter) but I can appreciate the lighter weight of another machine when you're carrying more than just your laptop.
The M15x sits on the absolute max of my accepted weight-load.

And then there's the sound of that JBL speaker system...

What about overall durability - I've read online that the M15x parts will inevitably fail and need to be replaced which I could then ask for a stronger GPU or CPU should they be in stock.
But is this true?
After reading as many reviews as possible from CNET.com, etc., users were very insistent of taking out warranties (Which for both of the above machines I will).
However is this because I have to?

Suppose I want the most future proof in terms of reliability between the two.

 

Well, we were more focused on the performance, but if you were considering other aspects such as weight, battery life, sound, then this whole situation could get a lot more complicated, you gotta weigh the options carefully yourself and find which is more important to you.

Regarding alienware, they usually have great quality considering they are the dell's premier line. But I am not sure about the XPS, you might want to start a thread in the XPS forum and ask peoples opinions there, they should be much more experienced in this area Dell XPS and Studio XPS

 

I was given a warning for cross posting (As ridiculous as it seems) for merely getting the perspectives on both machines when I last tried that in the Dell Xps section.

A question about performance actually.
Hypothetically speaking - if I were to keep the M15x (Most likely the case) and upgrade the CPU in a year or so's time to the best CPU available would that be a sensible option in terms of performance gain over time compared to the i7 2630qm in the Dell Xps 15 today?

 

You cannot upgrade to the best CPU available when 1 year have passed. Not even from Arrandale to Sandy Bridge (the current one). A CPU upgrade from 820QM to 840QM will give you zero performance. 840QM will get spanked and beaten hard by 2630QM in emulators and CPU bound games. There will be exactly the same gaming performance between them in 95% of the PC games. Upgrade to 940XM will be better than going to 840QM but it is the exact same story as 840QM vs 2630QM. End of story. There is nothing more to be discussed.

 

You're still missing the point as I don't consider SuperPI 'real world'.

As an example on my part, when I moved from Arrandale to SNB the real world performance was easily twice as good in my workflow.

With SNB being onto 'version 2' already, the 8xx/9xx series processors are at least 2 gens old. The i7 2630QM is version 1 of the SNB cpu's (which still beats the older gen at clock speeds, btw).

While you may be too lazy to find the dry ice reference in the link you provided, that doesn't mean it's imaginary.

I have no doubt that O/C'ing increases performance. But the cost of doing so (modding system for better cooling, more noise, chance of killing the system and limiting the lifespan of the O/C'd cpu for example...) does not justify it in my eyes.

A platform upgrade brings all the performance along with warranty and without overstressing the system needlessly (for benchmarks).

As to the gpu? Who cares? I don't. But I'm also not addressing the gpu obviously; I'm addressing the performance a platform upgrade can bring. (The OP can decide him/herself if the gpu is important or not for the required workload the system will be put to use for).


Anyway, I'm glad to see that the OP is approaching this decision in a more balanced fashion than either of us are.

 

Nice one on the version 2 of SB, haha, seems like intel did some serious architectural change to the whole SB line, didn't they? or did us NBR folks all miss something?

Who cares GPU performance? OP does, apparently, READ THE TITLE. You are responding to this thread, thus I presume you are making some suggestion based on OP's need, or you are just thinking aloud without even reading?

 

I have a i5-2520M (lower version of 2540M) and I think it's sufficient for all my gaming needs on a 15.6" IdeaPad Y570 with GT 555M.

I could have went with a i7-2630QM from the start but I opted for the slightly cheaper i5-2520M (which is perfect for my usage) and spent the money saved on a faster hard drive.

 

Whilst the initial thread was about an i5 vs an i7 I'm happy with where this is heading.

I'm listening... Would the overclock be significant in order to match or come as close as possible to a i7 2630qm?

I agree on the point concerning limiting overclocking to prolong component lifespan.

The GPU is important in regards to being able to run the latest games (Pc)

I meant in regards the the best CPU available for the M15x.
And from what I've been reading a 940XM comes very close to the i7 2630qm.

 

lol where could you have read that before hmmmm let me think? Maybe from me few posts ago?

What I meant (and I think I may have put it wrong):
Going from 820QM to 940XM will give you ZERO benefit in 95% of the games.
Going from 820QM to 940XM will give you a bit better frames in Dolphin/PCSX2. Overclocking 940XM will give you very good results in Dolphin/PCSX2 but I am not 100% shure that is needed since 940XM could probably handle just about all games there in 100% speed on stock frequency. No need for overclocking. This is just me guessing, but I know the 2630QM guys are playing Dolphin without problems

And this was my last post in this thread. Bye

 

You will need a very high amount of overclock to come close to the performance of 2630qm with 820qm, but it's not necessary, just overclock it moderately and be happy with the free performance gain. If you are worried about its performance in dolphin, let me give you some examples of my experience.

I have tried quite some games on both of my laptops, an asus with X9100(core 2 based extreme processor overclocked at 3.33ghz) and a 9800M gs, another is an AW with 2630qm and 6970M. You know what's funny, all the games run perfectly well on my AW runs perfectly well on my asus too, and the games aren't playable on my asus doesn't run well on my AW either.

Some games I tried: resident evil remake wii(runs perfectly well on both), resident evil umbrella chronicles wii(runs slightly better on AW, but playable on asus too), resident evil darkside chronicles wii(doesn't very run well on either, barely playable on either), resident evil zero wii(unplayble on either), Metroid: other M(runs perfectly well on both).

My point is, yes, a higher processor can make a difference for dolphin, but unless one processor is significantly more powerful, then it won't make a big difference, in my case, a 2630qm isn't much better than an overclocked core 2 based X9100, although the latter is quite old according to some people's eyes. The 2630qm may annihilate my x9100 in other areas like CPU bound games, video encoding, but for dolphin that is processed through only 2 cores, 2630qm isn't much better. So I believe an overclocked 820qm won't be much behind a 2630qm in terms of dolphin emulation.

 

Don't be obtuse. Those graphs only prove that the GT 540M is bottlenecked before the CPU at resolutions above 1280x720, and in three games where the CPU doesn't matter much anyway.

The tests were poorly run and they need to stop being trotted out to prove overarching points on whether games benefit from more powerful CPUs.

 

Try to read the thread instead next time Kevin. I have never said that games that involve the CPU too much you don`t get any better frames with faster CPU. That the benchmarks got almost identical results show that.

And it is well known that faster CPU does NOT give you better performance results in the clear majority of the games. There are maaany reviews out there that have shown that. Like this one:
How fast does my CPU need to be?
He is testing 580 in SLI and is overclocking his 2500K. 2/3 games he get the same FPS. In Just cause he get the same results with 3 different maps. And he is increasing his CPU speed by a whopping 1.3GHz.

Now if you don`t believe me, you are free to post any other results proving otherwise. I am ready to learn something new, but this is my understanding so far

 

I don't understand why you posted this.
Was it a final say without any further acknowledgement from the viewpoints or understanding from anyone else?
Which afterwards you then later contradict yourself with your last post by saying...

So are you staying to help or not?

I first of all would like to state the two points.

1. A faster CPU DOES give you better performance in the majority of games in the regards to the M15x at least.
(This was tested, by myself, by disabling Turbo mode to create a lower frequency (Slower CPU speed, and, as a result, every game I tested dropped between 5 and 10 FPS - Ranging from Battlefield 3 to Emulation).

2. Perhaps you are correct in regards to the 580 SLI user - It is a very powerful system he has obtained.
But I don't have SLI, dont even have a desktop and don't intend to change to one.

What I'm saying is that the difference in CPU can affect FPS.
And because it is affecting me, is the reason I opened the thread.

 

Todays CPUs are fast enough and are NOT a bottleneck. That is the very reason why GPUs are what matter. I bet disabling turbo boost (a primary function of the CPU) will take away the whole "good enough" argument and will cause it to perform worse.
Here is another proof. This time with a 6950 GPU but with different speed on the exact game where you claimed CPU speed matters. And why does it matter that it is desktop or notebooks they are testing? It shows the same CPU/GPU picture. You can see they have disabled hyper threading and even 2 cores.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2011/11/10/battlefield-3-technical-analysis/7

Here is their conclusion

You can post your own results as well, but I think I made my points pretty clear.

But whatever. I am done with this thread. For real this time

 

To hopefully clarify my points that I want to make:

1) Sure, gpu HP is important to gaming - but that does not preclude considering the gpu as a 'fixed' entity and changing cpu HP to see how gaming is affected. I'm sure the OP is smart enough to see this for him/herself - yup! tested his current system like that and confirmed what I've been saying.

2) As we all know; notebooks do not command the highest performance platform vs. desktops. That is why the most current platform will always be the best bet at achieving the highest sustainable performance over the long term.

With a desktop, some benchmarks can be shown where more cpu power doesn't correspond to more gaming fps/performance - but that point is mute because desktops are already far outpacing any notebook system available.

At the lower end of the performance spectrum, where notebooks lie, more cpu HP will equal more gaming performance (and if not right now, in a few months as always newer games keep being released with higher 'real' minimum requirements).

While the OP's 'test' of disabling Turbo was discredited, it really validates how important cpu power is to gaming (especially on notebooks) - whether we might want to admit it or not.

 

Games simply have to be taken on a case by case basis. It's dangerous to use the results of a few to speak for the whole.

So, per Cloudfire, we've established that BF3 does not benefit from a faster CPU, at all. This is absolutely true.

Now, here are some modern games which clearly do, even at GPU bound resolutions:

Crysis 2:


Deus EX: Human Revolutions:


Skyrim:


The Witcher 2:


Starcraft 2: (where # of cores above 2 doesn't matter, but the speed and bandwidth of them is essential)



Civilization V:


No one is right or wrong, it just depends on what game you're talking about.

 

All of those games are new so they are highly valid. Makes you wonder though if it is a point where the GPU is too strong that the CPU actually becomes the bottleneck. With Crysis 2 and Witcher 2 they were testing with a GTX 590 on ultra settings which is indeed very hardcore. Starcraft 2 and Civilization 5 is very CPU dependent so that was a no shocker.

But yes I can admit that I was wrong to bastantly generalize that games do not benefit from faster CPU although I would like to know if mobile GPUs are so strong that the CPUs too become bottlenecked there?

 

Afaik, both mobile cpu's and gpu's are nowhere near 'strong' enough to not bottleneck each other.

Even if you can run the highest possible mobile hardware every few months; your games are bottlenecked on any notebook; by both the cpu and the gpu.

Cost, heat dissipation and simple physical size all conspire to make mobile systems very second class (a huge drop down from a desktop top-of-the-line setup...) citizens in the computing world. They have come a long way from having a game be 'unplayable' though - no matter what was spent on the notebook.

 

Lots of myths in this thread:

Myth 1. Games are mostly gpu bound.

Depends on the game and it varies in the game. I've been running Skyboost in Skyrim for a week and before that I was running the acceleration layer with an old desktop PC (Core 2 Duo E7500, 4gb RAM, Radeon HD6770). It really shows you where the game is cpu bound and my minimimum fps in certain areas like outside the Museum of Dawnstar improved by 9 fps at 1600x900, Ultra settings, High Shadows, x2 AA and x16 AF. Thats just by cleaning up unoptimized code and eliminating redundant cpu calls. See Kevin's excellent post to see the kind of variance of cpu influence in games.

Myth 2. Buying to futureproof.

There is no such thing as futureproofing in this industry. Not as long as computer products are on 6 month refresh cycles with totally new architecture coming along every couple of years. In 3 years time, the budget PC you can buy will probably smoke the top end future proofed system you buy today.

My last attempt at future proofing was with socket 939/Athlon 64. A year later Core 2 Duo (Conroe) came out and completely smoked by system for less money. Should I have waited? Probably, but if you wait in this industry, you'll be waiting until the next big thing in 6 months time...forever.

Myth 3. Quad cores are better than dual cores.

Only if the software you use is heavily parallel threaded. Some games can be highly cpu dependent in certain situations but most games are still not designed with parallel threading in mind. This is especially true of older games which benefit more from monolithic cpus at higher clocks.

I use my computer mainly for music production and in recent years the software I use has been redesigned drastically with parallelism in mind. Even so, the cpu meter is now a relic and does not give you even a basic idea of how Windows Scheduler handles things like load balancing. Now I mostly ignore it because the cpu load meter can be high but I still can keep on pushing and pushing and it never craps out.

Beyond that I couldn't say because Windows internals are so amazingly complex and elegant that I cannot hope to fully grasp them.

Nevertheless, when it comes to notebooks and gaming, pick any 2 of these 4:

Low emissions
Portability
Speed
Battery life/range